지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Employees’ rights to refuse hazardous work can be classified into two distinct domains. As a direct legislative measure, first, occupational safety and health law provides employees with right to refuse hazardous work, Second, employees’ rights to refuse hazardous works are given in the process of regulating employers who violate duties on private law such as the duty of reasonable care of safety. The purpose of this thesis is to examine how Germany, the United States, Japan and Korea regulate employees’ rights to refuse hazardous work and how it differ from each other from a comparative law perspective. In Germany, occupational safety and health law provides employees with right to refuse hazardous work and occupational safety and health regulations, if they become the content of employment contracts, materialize employers’ duty of reasonable care of safety. If employers violate the duty of reasonable care of safety, employees may have a right to refuse hazardous work. In the United States, OSH-Act provides employees with the right to refuse hazardous work. According to the dominant legal theory and case law in Japan, the enforcement of occupational safety and health law is mediated through private law when employers violate the duty of reasonable care of safety on employment contracts. And occupational safety and health law provides employees with right to refuse hazardous work. Except in the United State, in Germany, Japan and Korea, right to refuse hazardous work is stipulated not only as the duty by the positive(public) law but also as the duty by the contracts. Hazards of Industrial accidents exist actually is requisite for right to refuse hazardous work. And this right of employees sets reasonable decision of individual employee forth as a premise.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (39)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 1992. 8. 18. 선고 91다30927 판결
가. 원래 동시이행의 항변권은 공평의 관념과 신의칙에 입각하여 각 당사자가 부담하는 채무가 서로 대가적 의미를 가지고 관련되어 있을 때 그 이행에 있어서 견련관계를 인정하여 당사자 일방은 상대방이 채무를 이행하거나 이행의 제공을 하지 아니한 채 당사자 일방의 채무의 이행을 청구할 때에는 자기의 채무이행을 거절할 수 있도록 하는 제도인바, 이
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-360-001215507